Today is F-Day!

On May 8, 1989, the Electrochemical Society held their spring meeting in Los Angeles amid the frenzied controversy of the cold fusion announcement, and declared it F-Day!

This was on the heels of the 1989 American Physical Society meeting that began May 1 in Baltimore, where disgruntled physicists who failed to replicate the findings gathered together to congratulate each other for saving science from amateurs. After all, they knew nuclear theory, and chemists did not. Some of the biggest insults hurled by the mainstream physicists came from scientists with the MIT Plasma Fusion Laboratory and Caltech.

Electrochemist Nathan Lewis was from Caltech and claimed to have seen no effect. As it turned out, his experiment was woefully marred. [See Examples of Isoperibolic Calorimetry in the Cold Fusion Controversy by Melvin H. Miles J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 392–400] Still, Dr. Lewis showed solidarity with physicists by claiming “that their device “violates the first law of thermodynamics,” that is, the conservation of energy or, as is often said, “the universe offers no free lunch”.

That’s how Eugene Mallove tells it in his Pulitzer Prize-nominated book Fire from Ice Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor.

I’ve seen Youtube video of him frothing at the mouth while angrily asserting that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons had not “stirred their cells” properly.

Physicist Steve Koonin, a colleague of Nathan Lewis’s at Caltech, as well as future BP Oil exec and Department of Energy Secretary, said, “If fusion were taking place, we would see radiation in one form or another, and you would simply not be able to hide that radiation.”

Of course, this is what makes cold fusion/LENR so attractive. Not only do we get fusion-sized energy from tiny table-top cells that use a fuel of water, the heat energy is derived from a new type of reaction that generates no deadly radiation, as well as no CO2! Oh, Steve.

Eugene Mallove writes in his book Fire From Ice:

“…that Dr. Koonin also told New York Times reporter Malcolm Browne at the time of the meeting, “It’s all very well to theorize about how cold fusion in a palladium cathode might take place … one could also theorize about how pigs would behave if they had wings. But pigs don’t have wings.”

Nathan Lewis (L), Steve Koonin (Middle), and Charles Barnes (R) of Caltech. Usurping the scientific process, and believing a 100-year-old theory over the experimental facts, these three men helped to close down research on what could have been clean fusion energy technology. Photo: Interview with Charles Barnes Caltech Oral Histories

Dr. Steve Koonin further disgraced himself for all historical time by saying “My conclusion is that the experiments are just wrong and that we are suffering from the incompetence and delusion of Doctors Pons and Fleischmann.”

While the Baltimore meeting allowed physicists to vent their failures with misery as company, the lowest point for the American Physical Society was reached when Dr. Steve Jones from Brigham-Young University led a panel at a news conference. Steve Jones, of course, the very reason why the March 23, 1989 news conference was held in the first place.

It was after five years of research that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons decided to get funding for their experiments. The US Department of Energy gave their proposal to Dr. Steve Jones for review. Dr. Jones had been previously working on a different kind of muon-catalyzed fusion, but had given it up for lack of results. (He claimed to get neutrons, though no one has ever reproduced his results.)

When Jones saw what the pair from University of Utah were up to, he was excited enough to jump back in, and he contacted Drs. Fleischmann and Pons – not a normal procedure in the application process – to invite them down for a visit to see his neutron detector. In the end of February 1989, while they visited, Steve Jones told Drs. Fleischmann and Pons that he would be announcing his own form of “cold fusion” in May, but, if they wanted to publish papers at the same time, he would be willing to do that.

Huh? Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons wanted nothing more than to get their funding and keep working, but upon arriving back at the University of Utah, administrators and lawyers were fearful of losing the “first place” of announcing this new kind of energy-producing experiment. The two electrochemists were prodded into making the news conference announcement anyway, beating Jones’ own announcement.

At the Baltimore meeting of physicists, Dr. Jones, perhaps still sore from being one-upped on his one-up, made poor scientific judgement by polling with a show of hands in order to determine whether cold fusion was dead, as documented by Steven Krivit on his website.

Eugene Mallove wrote in Fire From Ice:

Finally, “science by press conference” occurred again, degenerating even further into “science by poll.” At a news conference on the second day of the Baltimore cold fusion fest, Steve Jones asked for an impromptu “straw poll.” He asked nine of the session’s leading speakers whether they were at least 95 percent confident that the University of Utah claim to have generated heat by fusion could be ruled out. Eight answered “yes” and one, Rafelski, Jones’s colleague, wisely withheld judgment. Rafelski commented, “This should not be taken as the matter is settled.” However, Yale physicist Moshe Gai said of his group’s work, “Our results exclude without any doubt the Pons and Fleischmann results.” The panel voted more favorably on whether the claim that neutrons were being seen in a number of cold fusion experiments could be ruled out—three of nine kept an open mind.”

May 2, 1989 Physicist Steve Jones takes a vote on whether or cold fusion is “dead”. Photo: New Energy Times if you can’t tell.

To have the top physicists in the country ridiculing the scientific process with such ugly outrage showed weak stature in scientific thinking, but these physicists were successful in having the tide turn against Drs. Fleischmann and Pons’ work. Their excess heat effects were now completely suspect.

Thus, when the May 8 meeting of the Electrochemical Society began, electrochemist Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech was confident in his superior knowledge. Nevertheless, there were 1600 attendees who were less assured.

From Fire and Ice, we get a list of positive results being reported from very competent and open-minded scientists. Eugene Mallove writes:

Everyone was awaiting May 8, when at the special cold fusion session of the Electrochemical Society spring meeting in Los Angeles, Fleischmann and Pons were supposed to present a “thorough, clean analysis” of the thermal aspects of their experiment. Pons told Jacobsen- Wells of the Deseret News, “We are going to supply all the information that we can. People evidently are misunderstanding a lot about calorimetry. A lot of people are making calorimetric measurements with instruments that may not be suitable for these experiments.”

The meeting began with controversy over the relative absence of critical scientists; had it been arranged to be a celebration of only positive results? Lewis of Caltech was present at least as a token skeptic. As he had done in Baltimore, he proclaimed his numerous permutations and combinations of materials and conditions, all of which had failed to show excess power or nuclear products. “I’d be happy to say this is fusion as soon as somebody shows that it is,” a self-assured Lewis told the 1,600 assembled. Fleischmann and Pons were having no trouble. Now they were claiming to get bursts of heat lasting a few days up to 50 times the power input to their cell—the claim was even more extreme than before! Was this a tip-off that they were really onto something, or that they had completely gone off the deep end? To rebut Lewis, they showed a brief film clip of a bubbling cell in which they had injected red dye. Within 20 seconds the dye had spread uniformly through the cell, intuitively giving the lie to Lewis’s accusation about improper stirring.

Concerning their neutron results, Fleischmann and Pons backed off a bit, acknowledging reluctantly that their measurements were deficient and were the “least satisfactory” part of their research. They said that they would rerun their experiment with a new detector. More disturbing was their withholding of the long-awaited and promised 4He measurements. There was an emerging feeling (not necessarily a correct one) that if there were no copious neutrons, there had to be helium-4 to make the claim for a nuclear process. The Fleischmann-Pons rods were being analyzed for helium by Johnson-Matthey Corporation, the 170-year-old British precious metals supplier, under an agreement of exclusivity with the company. This was the presumed reason for the turning down of many other offers to do the rod “autopsy.” Fleischmann had admitted at the meeting that if no helium were to turn up, “it would eliminate a very strong part of our understanding of the experiment.”

Bockris from Texas A&M, Huggins from Stanford, and Uziel Landau from Case Western all backed up the Utah duo with positive heat measurements. At a press conference Huggins said, “… It’s fair to say that something very unusual and large is happening. There is conclusive evidence there is a lot of heat generated here—much larger than the proposed chemical reactions that people suggest might be happening.” A thinly veiled criticism of physicists by a Society official, Dr. Bruce Deal, drew applause: “Unlike other societies, we do not attempt to solve complex technical problems by a show of hands.” But not every electrochemist left the meeting convinced. The experiments were subtle, apparently difficult to reproduce consistently, and of course totally unexplained. Steve Jones again reiterated his faith in his neutrons and disbelief on the question of heat—at least in cold fusion cells. Cold fusion might still be partly responsible, he thought, for the hellish conditions inside the planet.

Soon cold fusion would face increasingly acid opposition. Martin Deutsch, professor of physics emeritus at MIT had told Science News, “In one word, it’s garbage.” (Science News, Vol. 135, May 6, 1989.) Some media had essentially written it off. Scientists who had genuinely tried to make cold fusion happen, but who for reasons still not clear could not coax their cells into working, would be joining the ranks of the opposition. They were frustrated and mad. They had wasted precious research time chasing rainbows. Enough was enough! Time to move on.

But those who believed in the tantalizing results of some experiments would not be stilled. Others who were bold enough to theorize about fantastic mechanisms to explain cold fusion did not give up either. They persevered, egged on by the serious critics.

If people were having trouble finding neutrons, perhaps the mysterious “cold fusion” was a kind of nuclear reaction that was largely neutronless—as the MIT analysis seemed to suggest. As skeptic Petrasso himself would say in January 1990 at a lecture at the PFC, “We may turn out to be the big allies of Fleischmann and Pons if they can now prove that they have fusion, because what we’ve demonstrated now is that they basically didn’t have any neutrons at all coming from their heat-producing cell….So now they can claim that they are having neutronless heat generation.” If this turns out to be true, a mind-boggling technological revolution may be in store for us.

The cover of Time magazine on May 8, 1989. Fusion or Illusion? Two obscure chemists stir up a fascinating controversy in the lab, but new tests challenge their hopes of creating limitless energy By Michael D. Lemonick.

So it was that cold fusion became the “pariah science” despite so many positive results, and the Electrochemical Society proclaimed May 8 to be F-day. While I imagine that means Fusion Day, one could fill in F-day with other words, for though the ugly attitudes have stopped spraying spittle as they emote, the lasting effects of these lost years have yet to be measured.

What would have been different if these physicists had only kept to their scientific oath, to follow a method “consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Lucky for us, Caltech, MIT, the Department of Energy, the USPTO – it’s a long list – were not able to stop the research. Today, we are nearing commercially-available technology using condensed matter nuclear science, the field which Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons discovered. It’s 30-years late, but after rolling that long, we can expect an avalanche of announcements that will flip the narrative of failure that mainstream physicists have perpetrated. The failure is their own.

These men who de-railed our future should apologize to Dr. Martin Fleischmann (posthumously) and Dr. Stanley Pons (still underground), and us. The best way would be to urge their colleagues at the current Department of Energy to recognize CMNS science and start funding science research so we can get a technology fast. Or, we can just let them fade away, on the wrong side of history forever.

Get Eugene Mallove’s Fire From Ice from the New Energy Foundation online store here!

The 22 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science on September 8-13, 2019. Registration now open!

Peter Hagelstein on the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment has posted a video of Dr. Peter Hagelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology discussing the Pons & Fleischmann Experiment and its implications for nuclear physics.

Hagelstein will be conducting an IAP course Cold Fusion 101 on the MIT campus beginning January 27-31 with collaborator Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, developer of the NANOR technology. More information here.

From the original article (transcript):

What was the main problem of nuclear physics for the last 25 years? How did the scientific community split into two broad camps? Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology Peter Hagelstein explains his view on the cold fusion experiments.

“Cold fusion started in March of 1989 with the announcement of the observational facts by Fleischmann and Pons. The claim was stunning. Energy of nuclear origin, a lot of it, in a test tube, palladium electrode, heavy water: simple current, and there you have it. If true — it’s a big deal. It’s unlocking source of clean nuclear energy. All you have to do is doing some electrochemistry, and you can get clean nuclear energy. That’s magic at that time I was interested surely in. What happened next was not much fun. People tried to replicate it, and more than a hundred laboratories reported negative results. People scratched their head and they thought about how the science could work. And came to the conclusion that based on a lots of physics, and nuclear physics there was no basis for the existence of such an effect.”

“I was interested in why it’s impossible, and the role of experiment in terms of trying to sort out what’s real and what’s not real. The basic issue is that in nuclear physics people have studied nuclear reactions for many years. If you make energy in a nuclear reaction, the energy is made and the energy is carried away. That’s a consequence of fundamental laws of conservation of energy in momentum on a microscopic scale. In Fleischmann and Pons experiment the thing that was amazing is energy was being produced was nuclear, but there was no energetic nuclear emission coming off. That’s hard to understand.”

“Now we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are nor considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously.”

Watch the 13-minute video on Youtube here.

LENR: The Debutante at the Ball

The Cold Fusion research of Fleischmann and Pons was an anomaly in and of itself. Two electrochemists, while having a bit of fun with the maximum loading of hydrogen into palladium in an electrolytic cell, ventured into a realm of subatomic phenomenon. No one had been there before in quite this way.

They hazarded to say it was nuclear, and got blasted.

These two electrochemists had no assistance from other branches of science in trying to figure it out. Nobody came to their assistance. In fact, those who should have joined in this scientific quest, ridiculed the pair as charlatans. Instead of helping out these two lone electrochemists with a scientific dilemma, leaders in the nuclear scientific community of the U.S. government-funded Department of Energy (DOE) labs ridiculed them to no end. This left the two fellows to fend for themselves while being kicked out of the tribe, so to speak.

Luckily, the few scientists who had found positive results during the DOE-sponsored race to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) persisted, mostly in obscurity and without funding, in this query of the unknown.

Cutting edge experimental science requires patience, honest sharing of data, and evaluation for a continued improvement of the experimenters’ ability to enter into an unknown realm; which is to actually observe and record aspects of a difficult to create phenomenon and thereby test theory. In this manner, our understanding within the unknown realm grows.

I publish. You review after working it a bit. Always improving experiments. Together with theorists, we collect data, analyze and implement sound suggestions, always moving forward, advancing the science. Open collaboration quickens this difficult quest into the unknown. Open and enthusiastic collaboration by all branches of the scientific community into the query of the unknown is the basis of good science and is essential for the birth of a new science.

These early cold fusioneers formed an association of the shunned and published in a few “unrecognized” trade journals which they had to create in order to continue the scientific process in this controversial field. The Internet had appeared before the observed 
Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE), freeing these researchers from the limitations of the printing press.

The printing press had advanced science simply by causing more researchers to be reading more researchers work, which caused a quickening of the scientific process. 

I publish. You review it after working it a bit (through meticulous experimentation and collection of data). Together with theorists, we improve our ability to observe and record phenomenon,  improve analysis of data, always moving forward.

Today’s scientists no longer face the hurdle of a publisher’s peer review to get work printed. If you have fallen into an unknown realm who is your peer? Obviously only those who you find there with you. The Internet allowed the peers of cold fusion research to publish, which is the first step in involving the larger community in your scientific endeavor. Only after publishing can true scientific review begin.

Many of the established branches of science could have assisted Fleischmann and Pons with a few of their questions. These two were wondering what was actually going on. They also were trying to figure out, why, during different runs of their experiments, some cells produced nuclear levels of energy while others did not. None of those in mainstream science helped them to answer any of the questions concerning the new realm they were entrusted with.

The people who are experts in atomic theory had nothing to add. The people doing high-energy subatomic research at CERN or Lawrence Livermore had nothing to add. Thermoelectric devices are almost like LENR devices, without the hydrogen. Yet the mainstream thermoelectric crowd offered no assistance even though their grandfather, Harold Aspden, had became a godfather to new cold fusion research. Even the emergent semiconductor field could have assisted this new science with their knowledge of dopants and understanding of the adolescent quantum field branch of science.

None of these folks showed even a bit of healthy scientific interest in this work. Almost all their curiosity evaporated into thin air. After the announcement of the birth of cold fusion research people were thrilled. Then to have virtually all curiosity evaporate within the whole scientific community, is an anomaly of such a magnitude that it is hard to comprehend. These lone researchers from a single branch of science, with their Internet printing, were left to care for this newly born area of research by themselves, held separate from the larger scientific community. They were left without communal guidance or assistance in their care of this new unknown scientific field, the infant known as cold fusion research.

Fleischmann and Pons were just trying to figure it out. Who knows how dirty their electrical currents were? Might there have been harmonic frequencies created upstream of their current supply, caused by any number of other electrical equipment being turned on, or turned off, at the same time? (My TV used to go fuzzy when the neighbor turned on his table saw.)

These electrical eddy currents could cause one cell to go positive, with nuclear dense energy being produced, while another, without this added focusing of energetics, would be a dud. Would there be pulsations created simply by a portional electrical on/off factor, thereby creating superwaves or standing wave formations? Are influential magnetic moments created within such electron dense environments? Are harmonic frequencies within the lattice the key?

What surface topography or nano engineering is required? Are the  proper fractal geometries essential for equilateral fusion firing and control throughout the system?  Do we need some dopants thrown in? Do we need to get the advanced materials folks engaged in doing some Edisonian style research with every known metal and alloy? Is an unknown source of energetics thrown into the mix, such as dark energy or gravity?

How might one capitalize on these many components within the atomic and the subatomic realm of the cold fusion nuclear reactive environment? Are angular eddy currents within the electron shell a key? Or specific angular thermal currents? Do subatomic transmutations within the molecular liquid crystal plasma create atomic transmutations, on an atom by atom basis? 

So many questions faced Fleischmann and Pons in their efforts to sustain this child that, unassisted by the larger community, the new science of cold fusion barely survived. Luckily the science did and she is growing up, as we shall see.

Science has been progressing nicely since the birth announcement of cold fusion research in 1989. Quantum physics and engineering has matured since then. After a battle for acceptance, it is now seen as a branch of science that will advance us beyond our present understanding of known Einsteinian physics. Nano-science has emerged fairly well developed, with exciting possibilities, being fully realized quite quickly.

Both of these branches of science have been openly courting cold fusion research and standing within the low energy nuclear reaction environment for some time. Once an ugly duckling, now a beautiful swan, LENR Energy is now considered to be exciting and full of potential. Highly energetic with no known faults LENR Energy attractive and much sought after.

LENR Energy Science and Engineering is finding herself best able to thrive as a multi-disciplinary field. LENR is the debutante at the ball. With some really great features: Clean inexpensive energy. Both LENR Electrical and LENR Thermal are embodiments of her grace.

We would certainly be amiss if we failed to mention the most attractive features. LENR energy transmutes radioactive waste while driving the turbines. My kinda gal. And when she steps onto the dance floor she actually flies, with the grace of a modern spaceplane and the beauty of a Boeing 747.

My hope is she will capture the attention of the semiconductor and thermoelectric crowd soon. Now that I stop and think on this, they are probably dancing together already. We will soon see.

Laboratoire de Physique Théorique – Toulouse – UMR 5152
A gauge theory picture of an exotic transition in a dimer model

We study a phase transition in a 3D lattice gauge theory, a coarse-grained version of a classical dimer model. The dimer model on a cubic lattice, first studied by F. Alet and collaborators, displays a continuous transition between an ordered columnar phase at low temperature and a disordered phase at high temperature where dimer-dimer correlations show an algebraic decay. This is rather unusual as the standard Ginzburg-Landau theory of phase transitions generally predicts an exponential decay of correlations in the disordered phase.

This phase transition is “exotic” in the sense that it cannot be simply explained by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of an order parameter. The existence of such unconventional continuous transitions is still very controversial, numerous authors pointing at an artifact due to a very weak first-order driven process.

To have a better understanding of the dimer model, we show, using duality arguments, that the classical dimer model can be mapped to a frustrated XY spin model coupled to a gauge field. The ordering transition is then naturally understood in terms of a Higgs mechanism. A Monte-Carlo study on large system sizes of the dual model indicates a second-order transition with exponents close but slightly different from those of the simple XY model. In order to confirm the type of the transition, we perform a flowgram analysis, a powerful numerical tool to test the nature of a transition. The results of the flowgram are unambiguously pointing toward a continuous transition.

Post-scriptum :

For more details, see the original paper Gauge theory picture of an ordering transition in a dimer model, by D. Charrier, F. Alet, P. Pujol in Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 167205 (2008)

Mardi 12 fevrier 2013-14:00
Spin-dependent thermoelectric transport in HgTe/CdTe quantum wells

Marine Guigou (LPS Orsay) par Bertrand Georgeot – 12 février

HgTe quantum wells are known to host, under a topological phase transition, the quantum spin Hall effect. The latter refers to the presence of metallic edge states moving in opposite direction for opposite spins. Recently, HgTe/CdTe quantum wells, among others topological insulators, have been proposed as good materials for thermoelectric conversion. The basic idea relies on the topological protection of the 1D edge states that prevents reduction of electrical transport in disordered systems. Their efficiency to convert heat into electricity is based on the dominance of the edge modes on transport [1,2].

During this presentation, I will discuss about the thermoelectric properties of HgTe/CdTe quantum wells through the analysis of Seebeck and spin Nernst coefficents in a four terminal cross-bar setup. As a lateral thermal gradient induces a longitudinal electric bias and a transverse spin current in such a system, each of them can be used as a probe of the topological regime as well as finite size effects of the quantum spin Hall insulator. Furthermore, I will present a qualitative relative between effective mass of particles and magnitude of spin Nernst signal which allows to provide an explanation of the observed phenomena based on anomalous velocities and spin-dependent scattering off boundaries[3]

[1] R. Takahashi and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 81, 161302 (2010).

[2] O.A. Tretiakov, A. Abanov, S. Murakami, and J. Sinova, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 073108 (2010).

[3] D.G. Rothe, E.M. Hankiewicz, B. Trauzettel, and M.G., Phys. Rev. B 86, 165434 (2012).

When spontaneous transmutation of particles occurs in a quantum liquid.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)

par Carlos Lamas – 12 juillet 2012

Toutes les versions de cet article : English , français

The nature of doped insulators (where electrons experience strong repulsion) is a key issue that has been debated for years : it was first suggested that fermionic dopants (fermions are particles that can not share the same quantum mechanical state) can change into bosonic particles (bosons are particles that can occupy the same quantum mechanic state) – so-called statistical transmutation. This spectacular phenomenon is made possible by the exotic nature of the parent insulator, a quantum liquid which might be viewed as a “soup” of fluctuating close-packed dimers. Such a state is shown to exhibit emergent (topological) quantum defects that can bind to dopants and change their fundamental quantum properties and statistics (fermionic or bosonic statistics). In a recent Letter, C.A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D.C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc and P. Pujol have proven the existence of a “statistical transmutation” symmetry : the system is invariant under a simultaneous transformation of the statistics of the dopants and change of the signs of all the dimer resonances. The authors combine exact analytical results with high performance numerical calculations to clarify this issue. The exact transformation developed in the letter enables to define a duality equivalence between doped quantum dimer Hamiltonians, and provides the analytic framework to analyze dynamical statistical transmutations. These results constitute a fundamental step in the understating of a broad family of new phenomena in the large community of strongly correlated electronic systems.

Reference : C. A. Lamas, A. Ralko, D. C. Cabra, D. Poilblanc, and P. Pujol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 016403 (2012)

Martin Fleischmann leaves brilliant legacy of courage in pursuit of truth

Martin was probably the greatest scientist that I have ever known… I believe that eventually truth will win out. I don’t know how long it might take, but eventually Martin will be honored by many for his great scientific work in the cold fusion field.” —Dr. Melvin Miles

The world is slowly, but inexorably, moving toward a better place because of Martin Fleischmann’s transit through it.” —Dr. Mitchell Swartz

He was chosen to pay the price for success. Now he has peace and the rest of us have the responsibility not to let his sacrifice be in vain.” —Dr. Edmund Storms

Martin Flesichmann was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived.” —Dr. George H. Miley

Martin Fleischmann has left the planet, on his way to better beyonds where knowledge is total and awareness a mere triviality in a larger existence.

New Energy Times has reported here that he passed away in his home in the United Kingdom Friday, August 3, 2012 with his family in attendance.

Born March 29, 1927, Dr. Martin Fleischmann was lauded as one of the greatest electrochemists that ever lived. Co-discoverer of cold fusion with his partner Stanley Pons, the pair embarked on an epic scientific journey that adds their names to the list of greatest scientific figures in history.

Enduring decades of ostrasization from their conventionally-thinking peers, both Drs. Fleischmann and Pons have been vindicated for their claims as cold fusion, also called lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR), and low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), has been reproduced hundreds of times by multiple types of systems.

Cold fusion offers a viable alternative to the continued use of dirty fossil fuels and nuclear power that uses radioactive materials leaving waste so dangerous, it threatens biological systems worldwide. Cold fusion presented an ultra-clean energy-dense source of power using as fuel hydrogen from water. The development of both the science and technology of cold fusion was almost extinguished by a coordinated effort from hot fusioneers and conventional energy physicists in 1989 who sought to discredit their results, and succeeded in delaying the development of clean energy technology for two decades.

It has been a small group of intrepid researchers from around the globe that have continued the work, bolstering the data with over-two decades of experimental confirmation that cannot be refuted. Commercial development of cold fusion technology in the form of hot water heaters and steam generators is currently ongoing by a new generation of scientists that were inspired by initial announcements of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons.

Andrea Rossi, inventor of the Energy Catalyzer, has said in an interview with James Martinez that ‘it was the announcement of their discovery in 1989 that was the “spark that ignited the fire”’. [read]

In an interview with Ruby Carat, hot- and cold-fusion pioneer Dr. George H. Miley remarked that “Martin Flesichmann was one of the greatest scientists that ever lived.”

Referring to the wild emotional backlash from physicists who felt their research threatened by the discovery, Dr. Miley said, “Any personal ramifications of individuals is so unfortunate. But you know that’s happened to many people in the field. The field has had a series of tragic events occur where workers in it have been maligned. Emotions grew so high. It should have been done in a scientific fashion, it would’ve been so much better. But I have nothing but the highest respect for Pons and Fleischmann, such great scientists, anyone would be privileged to follow their lead in science.” [read]

Cold fusion researcher and author Dr. Edmund Storms responded to the news of Martin Fleischmann’s passing with, “I was not part of his major field of interest, so my role in the LENR field was not important to him. Nevertheless, I’m sad that he paid such a high and unreasonable price and is now gone. His efforts to make the CF effect work could just as well have been as unsuccessful as experienced by most attempts at replication. But he was chosen to pay the price for success. Now he has peace and the rest of us have the responsibility not to let his sacrifice be in vain.”

He was further quoted here:
Martin demonstrated that Nature has a diabolical plan. He and Stan were
not the first to cause the LENR process but they were the first to attract
attention. For that, they paid the price Nature always extracts when a
great discovery is made. They attempted the “impossible” based on a flawed
model, using lucky material that most people could not duplicate, and
stirred up a firestorm of antagonism from people who were their colleagues
and friends. They were rejected for reasons both ignorant and self-serving
by people who we all thought should know better. Sadly, Martin did not
live long enough to say he told them so, and have the last laugh.
Hopefully, the rest of us can complete the process and gain acceptance for
what he and Stan paid such a dear price to make known. We will all miss
the man who led us into this crazy field.
” —Edmund Storms

Scientist and designer of the NANOR device currently on public display at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy has written:
The world is slowly, but inexorably, moving toward a better place because of Martin Fleischmann’s transit through it.

He was involved in two of the most important things in life: learning and teaching. He taught at King’s College, Durham University (later, University of Newcastle upon Tyne) and University of Southampton. He discovered and taught surface enhanced Raman scattering effect and the achievement of high energy Cold Fusion in a palladium lattice

Martin and his two partners were the first to achieve the purposeful attainment of cold fusion (fusion of deuterons to helium 4) using applied electric fields and a lattice in salty heavy-water.

As the cat whisker junction is to the Internet, Dr. Martin Fleischmann’s contribution in cold fusion will be to space travel, fully powered artificial internal organs, and much more.” —Mitchell Swartz

In a recent interview with Ruby Carat, former-Navy researcher and Professor of Chemistry Dr. Melvin Miles remarked that the data analysis Martin Fleischmann did on their collaborations that confirmed his own calculations was like none other in the world in it’s detailed meticulousness. “Only Martin could have done an analysis like this”, he said, calling him “one of the greatest scientists ever”. [read]

Dr. Miles responded to the news today re-iterating his assessment:
I have had many communications from Martin starting in about 1994 and have these here at home. Martin was probably the greatest scientist that I have ever known. I hope that this will someday be recognized by many others. I have spent many hours, days, and weeks studying his calorimetric equations and methods. He was far ahead of any other group in his calorimetric designs, modeling, and data analysis. This will be the topic of one of my ICCF-17 presentations and what led to my recent question for him. One of the main inspirations for me to continue with the difficult cold fusion research and calorimetry was my recognition of Martin Fleischmann’s brilliance that shown so far brighter than that for any Caltech, MIT, or Harwell scientist who worked with calorimetry.

Martin Fleischmann visited me here in California in October of 2000, and we took him to see again his favorite spot in Yosemite National Park. It was always a pleasure to spend time with Martin and to learn from him. I will greatly miss him. I believe that eventually truth will win out. I don’t know how long it might take, but eventually Martin will be honored by many for his great scientific work in the cold fusion field.Melvin Miles

The courage and character of Martin Fleischmann, along with his pal Stanley Pons, and including Eugene Mallove and all the scientists who continued their bold and honest inquiry into the workings of nature for the benefit of humankind, are the inspiration for Cold Fusion Now, and remain the heart of our existence.

With respect to his family, the cold fusion/LANR/LENR community, and all peoples of the globe who long for freedom, we dedicate ourselves to the same tenacious quest for the clean energy to power a green and peaceful human future.

Martin Fleischmann will emerge again when the new documentary by 137 Films called “The Believers” is finally released later this year. Until then, here is Martin Fleischmann speaking in 1999 at the American Chemical Society meeting on the 10-year anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. He is introduced by Dr. Melvin Miles, a long-time researcher who collaborated with Dr. Fleischmann on many investigations.

Thank you to the New Energy Foundation for archiving this historical sequence.

With Love and Peace to You Martin. Thank You.

More wishes from around the world:
The Deep Reach of Martin Fleischmann

Related Links

New Energy Times posted this obituary here.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in their own words by Ruby Carat March 23, 2012

Thank you Martin Fleischmann; Thank you Stanley Pons by Ruby Carat March 23, 2011

1994 BBC doc Too Close to the Sun profiles early history of cold fusion underground by Ruby Carat June 7, 2012

The Telegraph on Martin Fleischmann August 9, 2012

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons In Their Own Words

Twenty-three years ago on March 23, 1989 Dr. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made an announcement of their astounding discovery of a new form of energy then dubbed cold fusion.

One of the first scientific discoveries born of the modern mass media, the world buzzed with fax machines and satellite TV as scientists dropped what they were doing to try to reproduce their results. A deceptively simple apparatus was more difficult to handle than thought, and very brilliant people became brilliantly emotional at their inability to accomplish the Fleischmann-Pons Effect FPE.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were since abandoned by their universities and disowned by their colleagues. They have yet to be recognized for their work by mainstream science even as, more than two decades later, independent labs are close to developing a commercial technology that could change the future of humanity.

We honor these two Lions of Science who had the courage to face the unknown with honesty and integrity. Sirs, you have no peers!

These videos are from the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour of that day, when the pair were interview by journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault. They come compliments of the New Energy Foundation which provides direct support to new energy researchers and was founded by Eugene Mallove, an early defender intellectual honesty and a champion for those scientists who were shut out from the community they so loved.

Thank-you Martin Fleischmann; Thank-you Stanley Pons

It’s officially 22 years since the announcement of your discovery – fusion-power from heavy water and a tiny piece of metal.

We’re grateful for your contribution. We’re grateful for your courage.

We know it wasn’t easy. You shouldn’t have had to go through such bullying from fellow scientists.

But you started a revolution.

And we’re so glad you did. This discovery will give the world a second chance at a technological future with peace and freedom.

You have been vindicated. A new generation knows your contribution and learn without prejudice.

The work isn’t finished.

And we’re not going to stop until we have the future this planet deserves.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons Heros of Tomorrow


With Love and Peace and Gratitude,

Our Home

PS Just look what you started!

Sterling Allan and Andrea Rossi on Coast to Coast AM on this anniversary of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons‘ announcement.